Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Are filmmakers intentionally exposing children to erotic theatre?

Basic Instinct 2, a new "erotic thriller" starring Sharon Stone, was released a few weekends ago, and to the surprise of almost no one it tanked at the box office. After three weeks at the theatres, the movie has grossed less than $6,000,000. Now, having a movie crash and burn is not that unusual, but what is unusual about this film is that Paul Verhoeven, "director of the first "Basic Instinct" (which scored $353 million worldwide) as well as the widely ridiculed "Showgirls" (now regarded as something of a camp classic), attributes [erotic thrillers'] demise to the current American political climate." According to "Erotic thrillers lose steam at box office" from Reuters (April 3, 2006):

"Anything that is erotic has been banned in the United States," said the Dutch native [Verhoeven]. "Look at the people at the top (of the government). We are living under a government that is constantly hammering out Christian values. And Christianity and sex have never been good friends."

Ignoring for the moment the fact that it is simply untrue that "anything that is erotic" has been banned, the idea that the government is responsible for people not watching a particular erotic thriller shows the alternate universe that these filmmakers inhabit. Still, there are a couple of different aspects to this story that I think deserve comment but which I haven't heard discussed much.

First, it is worth noting that Paul Verhoeven is, in fact, an "active participant" at the Weststar Institute which means, according to the Westar Institute's website, that Mr. Verhoeven "has been or [is] currently involved in the work of the Westar Institute." Now, for those for whom the name "Weststar Institute" has no meaning, the Weststar Institute is the organization behind the Jesus Seminar -- the group of glory-seeking scholars who claim that there goal is to find the historical Jesus, but who I think are actively working to undermine the Christian faith. The fact that one of their fellows should be making comments adverse to Christianity (or, at least, conservative Christianity) should surprise no one familiar with this group's efforts to portray Jesus not as savior, but as a man who has been deified by Christianity.

Second, Christianity does not hate sex. Only someone ignorant of Christian belief and values would hold such a view. Back in January 2005, I wrote about the Biblical view of sex here and pointed out that 1 Cor. 7:4-5 absolutely clears up any misconceptions that Christians should abstain from sex. Sex is a gift from God, and we are called upon to enjoy the gift responsibly, i.e., in the context of a committed marriage relationship.

The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.

The Biblical admonitions against sex goes to perversions of the marital relationship intended by God because such perversions fall into the broad teachings about keeping oneself spiritually pure.

Third, these claims from the erotic movie industry come right before the release of a new study which speaks volumes about the concerns being voiced by conservative Christians. In an article entitled "Teen Exposure to Sex in Media Leads to Intercourse, Study Says" (a headline that speaks volumes), Bloomberg.com reports:

Adolescents who get a heavy diet of music, television, magazines and movies are more likely to have sex at the ages of 14 to 16 years than those who have minimal exposure, said a study published in the journal Pediatrics.

White 12- to 14-year-olds exposed to sex through the media were 2.2 times more likely to participate in early sexual activity than their peers who reported the lowest exposure to media, said the study in the April issue. Black teens, however, were more influenced by their parents' expectations and their friends' sexual behavior.

To me, this study has at least one ramification that is crucial vis-a-vis the view of Mr. Verhoeven: The problem here is that conservative Christians and the erotic-thriller filmmakers have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes good. To the conservative Christian, protecting our children is an issue of great importance. Speaking as a conservative Christian, I don't want my children becoming involved with sex any sooner than necessary for several reasons. First, sex is to be reserved for the marital relationship as I have previously noted. Second, sex brings up relationships and difficulties with which children ought not be required to deal. Films that are erotic don't help promote this vision of protecting our children because they encourage sex, and this study helps prove what every parent who cares about this issue knows instinctively.

People like Mr. Verhoeven value artistic freedom above everything else. A world in which someone would have the gall to suggest that the open portrayal of sex in the movies could have a detrimintal effect on young people is not a world that promotes good, but stagnation. He would probably hold that movies are the expression of the filmmakers and it is wrong to limit that expression in any way regardless of the consequences.

While I don't know if Mr. Verhoeven himself would hold to what I am about to say, I think that a lot of the people trying to peddle their films to the salacious side of our characters don't see the sexualization of children as being a problem. The idea that I would want to protect my children from too much exposure to sex is seen by such people as being a bad thing -- prudish, in fact. To some, children should be brought up to recognize that they are sexual beings and be able to experience their sexuality earlier and earlier in life. To them, that is good. I have known people who hid nothing from their children from an early age for that very reason.

These people argue that it is enough that they place restrictions on who sees the movies by putting a R-rating on the film. In other words, I am really worried about nothing because children aren't seeing these erotic thrillers. Now, I don't know about you, but when I have gone to the occasional R-rated movie (and I don't see many because most are really bad) I have been stunned by how many parents bring their children -- very young children -- to see an "R" rated movie. When I went to see The Matrix with my wife for a 10:00 p.m. showing one Saturday night a few years ago, the theatre was half-filled with children under the age of 12. I am sure that many of the children were under the age of 8!!

Of course, parents are free to take their children to see what they want to see even though it strikes me as odd that parents would want to expose their children to sex and/or violence at that young of age. But what this demonstrated to me most conclusively is that not every parent is concerned about what their children see or how early they see it. In fact, a 2002 study by Brigham Young University showed that only 16 percent of children between the ages of 10 and 14 are not allowed to watch R-rated films. 16 percent! As the study points out, that means "84 percent of children between the ages of 10 and 14 have seen R-rated movies" which leads to consequences:

Researchers found that children who were allowed to watch R-rated movies were three times more likely to smoke and drink than those who were not allowed to watch R-rated movies, according to the study.

While this statistic doesn’t prove that one causes the other, it implies that viewing material considered inappropriate for children can have more serious implications. Beginning to smoke and drink while young means increased risks and faster addiction.

The report on the Bringham Young study does not talk about sexual involvement, but certainly it is not unreasonable to assume that if it is true that children who see adults smoking and drinking in R-rated movies are more likely to copy them, then what about sex? This new study seems to fill in the blank -- 84% of children between the ages of 10 and 14 are permitted to go see R-rated movies where they are exposed to erotic material, and seeing this material is making them significantly more likely to engage in sexual conduct at earlier ages. Sex, after all, is a very strong passion which, if the right opportunity arises, is very hard to resist.

Here's the question: are these filmmakers putting this material into movies knowing that 84% of kids between the ages of 10 and 14 are permitted to watch R-rated films for the purpose of making them sexually active at an early age? In my view, while they may not realize the number of kids they are reaching, I certainly wouldn't put it beyond them.

Popular posts from this blog

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated.

In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article. Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I h…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

John Lennox is a wonderful spokesman for Christianity. In many ways, he is the one Christian apologist who has acquired the mantle of C.S. Lewis in the way that he is able to take points that are sometimes difficult for those unfamiliar with thinking about Christianity and reduces them to simple arguments using metaphors and examples that anyone can understand.

Since it is the Christmas season, I thought it worthwhile to point a video by Dr. Lennox entitled "Christmas for Doubters." In the video, he responds to the idea that the early Christians believed in the Virgin Birth because they were too ignorant to understand how babies were conceived. Rather, by comparing the accounts of the birth of Jesus with the birth of John the Baptist, Dr. Lennox shows that those who wrote the Gospels understood that the authors of the Gospels did have an understanding of where babies come from, but that they understood that the births of both Jesus and John the Baptist were outside of ordin…

It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy with the concept of miracles. So should we all be watchful not to believe too quickly because its easy to get caught up in private reasons and ignore reason itself. Thus has more than one intelligent person been taken by both scams and honest mistakes. By the the same token it is equally a danger that one will remain too long in the skeptical place and become overly committed to doubting everything. From that position the circular reasoning of the naturalist seems so reasonable. There’s never been any proof of miracles before so we can’t accept that there is any now. But that’s only because we keep making the same assumption and thus have always dismissed the evidence that was valid. At this point most atheists will interject the ECREE issue (or ECREP—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or “proof”). That would justify the notion of remaining skeptical about miracle evidence even when its good. The…

Lately, I have been listening to a series of lectures by Hubert Dreyfus, Ph.D., a Philosophy professor at U.C. Berekley, concerning the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. The lecture has been very interesting, and while I think that Professor Dreyfus has some questionable interpretations of the Bible, his discussions have given me a greater understanding of Kierkegaard's view of faith. Most importantly, it has helped me clarify in my own mind the use of the illustration of a Knight of Faith and the example of Abraham and Isaac.

The Two Knights of Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, the great Danish philosopher of the 19th Century, can be considered the father of modern existentialism. In his work Fear and Trembling, he wrote about the difference between two types of people whom he called the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith. In Fear and Trembling, , Kierkegaard identifies Abraham as a Knight of Faith. In his lectures, however, I get the sense that Professor Dreyfus, who I ac…

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here.]

Having explained why, as a Christian, I do not hold to what many people (Christian and sceptic) have considered the 'party line' that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, I will now explore this issue from a deeper philosophical perspective.

A Christian (or other religious theist) who accepts a faith/reason disparity will usually do so for religious reasons. His argument that these two aspects must be mutually exclusive (or at least need not have anything to do with each other) will be grounded on positions and presumptions which usually proceed from a devout loyalty to God's status, or from authority of specifically religious leaders, or from the structure of religious ritual, or some combination thereof.

And a sceptic who accepts a faith/reason disparity might do so only because, as far as he can tell, his opposition has chosen that grou…

William Lane Craig remains one of the most erudite and knowledgeable of today's Christian philosophers. His book, Reasonable Faith, has remained one of my favorite Apologetics tools because he lays out many of the Christian claims so clearly and cogently that only the most hardened of skeptics dismisses him or his work as being without weight. Certainly, his writings have led many people to turn their hearts toward Jesus.

We are blessed that Dr. Craig maintains a website also called Reasonable Faith with lots of information that can be accessed free of charge to make a case for Christianity. One of the great features of his website includes a question and answer section where Dr. Craig selects questions that have been addressed to him, and he generally provides really good answers that can help inform all Christians' Apologetics efforts. Unfortunately, this blog has not referenced Dr. Craig's work nearly as often as we ought, but I want to focus on one of the questions …

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

“[What] we have today is worse than ignorance of the Bible. It is contempt for it. Just about anyone who quotes the Bible, let alone says it is the source of his or her values, is essentially regarded as a simpleton who is anti-science, anti-intellectual and sexist.” ~ Dennis Prager, Jewish thinker and nationally syndicated talk show host, from I’m Back, Here’s Where I’ve Been.
There is no question that Christianity in the West is under attack from some in the public square. While Christians are still able to worship as they choose and to follow their faith (as long as they do so in private), one would need to be blind to overlook the effort by some to turn the public perception of Christianity as being backwards, ignorant and responsible for hatred. For example, in May 2011 the Huffington Post, the left-leaning Internet website, published an article entitled If You’re a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong by Cenk Uygur wherein Uygur expressed what I cannot doubt is the view of…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.